In many of my past articles I have tried to show that the terrorists which have committed the recent atrocities in the USA, Europe and elsewhere were not really motivated by Islamic values at all and that the rulers of the AngloZionist Empire are trying to create a “clash of civilizations” narrative in which the western world and the Islamic world are on a collision course. They way they do that is simple: they identify psychologically weak individuals, the types that religious sects always prey on, and they then provide them with a thin layer of pseudo-Islam to rationalize their alienation and give them an ideological pretext to strike out and murder members of the society they hate so much. My evidence is simple: if you look at what we find out about the perpetrators you will see that they are typically sexually promiscuous, often homosexuals, that they drink, use prostitutes and engage in many types of activities which are categorically forbidden in Islam. Furthermore, in most cases the perpetrators do not have even an intermediate level Islamic education and their newly-found “Islamism” is either gathered on the social media or the result of maybe one trip to a Muslim country. Simply put these so-called “Islamic terrorists” are not so much Muslims, as they are your common, garden variety type of maladapted losers, frustrated unhappy types with a weak psyche and a desire for revenge.
Each time I wrote this I was accused of “whitewashing Islam” or of denying the obvious: that Islam is aggressive and a threat to the western world. The first accusation is a rather crude ad hominem used to avoid discussing the issue and reduce it all to my putative sympathies for Islam. And since ad hominemscannot be logically challenged, I will focus instead on the second accusation: that Islam is a threat to the western world.
Let’s begin with some basics first. “Islam” is an extremely diverse religion which over the centuries has been adopted in countries ranging from Morocco to Indonesia. To speak of “Islam” without adding some kind of narrowing qualifier to that word is simply nonsensical. Just as it would be ridiculously unfair to lump Orthodox Christians with the Papist Crusaders (if only because the former were also victims of the latter), it is ridiculously unfair to lump the Takfiri crazies of Daesh or al-Qaeda with, say, the Shia (if only because in this case the latter were victims of the fomer).
Furthermore, the kind of militant Islam which we are dealing with today is a very unique and distinctvariant of Islam. Since I am not a Muslim myself I may well be wrong in my conclusions (Muslim readers: please correct me if needed!), but as far as I can tell the kind of militant Islam which inspires al-Qaeda, Daesh and the rest of the Takfiri crazies has its roots in the ideology of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhaband Muhammad bin Saud who together laid the foundation of the Saudi state. And while this ideology, Wahabism, does borrow elements from the teachings of the 14th century scholar Ibn Taymiyyah, it was, at least initially, limited to the various tribes living on the Arabian Peninsula and had very little impact on the rest of the Muslim world. In other words, Wahabism was a local phenomenon limited to Arabian Peninsula at least until the Americans decided to unleash it against the Soviets in Afghanistan (more about that later).
The second type of Islam which has inspired various terrorist organizations in northern Africa and the Middle-East is based on the ideas of Sayyid Qutb, an Egyptian author whose ideas have had a major impact on the Muslim Brotherhood which nowadays plays an important role in many countries such as Egypt, Turkey and many others. Some have tried to link what I would call “Qutbism”to the 9th century Kharijites, but this seems far fetched to me: Qutbism is a very modern ideology developed in reaction to the modern, secular, state.
There are some major differences between Wahabism and Qutbism (such as the former being profoundly reactionary and the latter much more progressive), but the key feature they have in common is that they are both profoundly revolutionary. This is one of the things which is most often overlooked: the revolutionary zeal of Wahabism and Qutbism is primarily directed at existing Muslim countries and societies, not at the rest of the world.
I would argue that just like the Ebola virus which has existed for a long time in the dark bat caves of Kenya, the Wahabi virus remind confined to the deserts of the KSA until some particularly demented minds in the USA (led by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a bona fide maniac) decided to unleash the Wahabi virus against the Soviets in Afghanistan.
What the CIA did was this: it 1) federated various extremist Muslims groups into one movement 2) it used Saudi money and propaganda to organize them and 3) it gave them weapons. Lots of weapons.
[Sidebar: The official narrative is that the plan worked and that the CIA booted out the Soviets from Afghanistan. Personally, I don’t buy this at all. Not only were Reagan’s “freedom fighters” unable to beat the Soviet army, it took them four long years to finally oust Mohammad Najibullah (1992) even though the Soviets withdrawal (1988) had left him completely alone. As for the Taliban, they only seized Kabul in 1996. No, what forced Gorbachev to order a withdrawal of the Soviet forces in Afghanistan was the total chaos inside the Soviet Union, not the military prowess of the Afghans. But since the CIA wanted to credit for “winning”, this is how the West decided to remember that event]
What is certain, however, is that the war in Afghanistan really did federate, for the first time, many varieties of Muslim extremists who convinced themselves that they had defeated the “Russian bear” and who then decided to take on both the established regimes of the Muslim world (whether Baathist or Shia) and the western infidels. The problem, however, was the the western infidels were far away and had plenty of military power at their disposal to deal with the Takfiris. So the Takfiris decided to fight only the weak:
1) The Russians in Chechnia during the Eltsin years (with the covert support of the Anglo-Zionists and most of the Muslim world)
2) The Serbs in Bosnia (with the full military support of NATO and the entire Muslim world)
Notice that when Putin came to power the Wahabis were defeated in Chechnia and that in Bosnia (and later Kosovo) the Wahabis were unable to defeat the Serbs and had to rely on the massive military intervention by NATO. In fact, it soon became apparent that the Takfiris could only achieve successes when backed by direct US/NATO power (Libya, Syria). The closest thing to a military success these Takfiris ever had was in Iraq where they could capitalize on the sectarian conflict resulting from the ousting of Saddam Hussein. As for Syria, Daesh has had the full support of the USA, the EU, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and all their proxies.
Why is all this important?
For two reasons: first, we have to realize that the threat we are dealing with is not “Islam” per se, but only a small subsection of the Islamic world. Second, this subsection primarily preys on the rest of the Islamic world, especially when it is already weakened by western military intervention.
Understanding a threat does not mean minimizing it. The Wahabi threat is real and it is growing with each passing year because the West still wants to use it against those states who refuse to be subjugated by the AngloZionist Empire. Even worse, the rulers of the Empire are now using the Wahabi crazies to create a crisis in their own homelands which they see as a means to preserve the current political order. In other words, the real problem are not the Wahabis, but the leaders of the AngloZionist Empire who are using these Wahabis inside and outside the Empire. What makes that threat even more dangerous is that Wahabism is now eroding traditional Islam in many parts of the world. In fact, most Muslim countries are now facing a revolutionary Wahabi threat, courtesy of the Saudis, of course, but also of their AngloZionist patrons who take absolutely no effective action to combat terrorism, who only pay lip-service to the need to not condemn all of Islam, but whose propaganda machine constantly hammers in the message that Islam, all of it, is a threat to the western world and democracy.
By refusing to discriminate between the Takfiris and the rest of the Muslim world, the Empire is constantly provoking the 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide even though the vast majority of these Muslims are not only not liked to any form of Wahabism, but they are also the main victim of Wahabi atrocities and terrorist attacks. The various forms of traditional Islam worldwide are now under a double threat: on one hand from the Wahabi crazies and their Saudi patrons and, on the other, from the cultural/ideological war the West is now waging against Islam as a religion and as a civilizational model.
The distressing thing is that Wahabism can only be defeated by exactly the opposite approach: a full-spectrum state effort to eradicate Takfiri terrorists and a strong effort to foster, and even protect, the non-Wahabi forms of traditional Islam. This is exactly what Putin and Kadyrov did in Chechnia and this is what Assad is now trying to do in Syria. But this strategy implies a fundamental shift in thinking, at least for the Wests, as it is centered on two things which the West is categorically refusing to do:
1) To kill as many Takfiri terrorists as possible (rather than try to use them against perceived enemies)
2) To accept that traditional Islam is the single most important defense against the Takfirism
The war in Chechnia has shown that Russians can kill a lot of Wahabis. But only Muslims can kill the Wahabi ideology.
None of the above requires any endorsement of, or sympathy for, Islam. I submit that straightforward pragmatic logic clearly indicates that the worst possible way to struggle against Wahabism is to proclaim that Islam as a whole is the problem. In reality, the deadly Wahabi ‘virus’ has infected the ‘body’ of Islam and is now growing inside it. If this process continues, the traditional Islamic ‘body’ will simply die and be replaced by a Wahabi pandemic which will be much, much more dangerous for the entire planet. Because, make no mistake here, Wahabism is a mortal threat to everybody, Muslim or not, and it is a force which cannot be negotiated with. When Hezbollah’s Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, refers to the Wahabi crazies as “shaitans” (demons) he quite literally correct. When the “moderate” terrorists execute 12 year old children and use chemical weapons against civilians it becomes quite literally impossible to imagine what the “hardliners” could be capable of.
The West stands at a crossroads: it can either wage a “clash of civilizations” kind of war against the entire Muslim world and lose that war, or it can finally come to its senses and realize that the only thing standing between it and the Takfiris is the traditional Islamic world. Either way, Russia will fare much better, not only because her security services and special forces now have a total of 35+ years worth of experience dealing with the Takfiri crazies, but also because she can count on her Muslim population to be at the forefront of the defense of the Russian state and of true Islam. In contrast, the AngloZionist West has managed to alienate most Muslims and can only count on its Israeli patrons for help (with friends like these who needs enemies anyway?).
I suppose that the hardcore Islam haters will call me or sorts of names and accuse me, once again, of being a Muslim propagandist. Fine. To them I can only say “enjoy your losing war against an entire religion!”. To those still capable of thinking straight I suggest the obvious: the bull in a corrida dies because he wastes his strength and energy trying to fight a piece of red cloth instead of goring the torero holding it.
You are the bull. The red cloth is the AngloZionist’s depiction of Islam. The matador is the AngloZionist Empire. Your move.
The Essential Saker: from the trenches of the emerging multipolar world